YouTube 1. I had no idea Teslas weighed so much 2. Here is one going 10.4

zooomer

Member
Sep 30, 2008
96
9
I posted the link to correct the capital that VW is investing.

People aren't buying cars and preference has shifted to CUV/SUV models. That's a 100% fact look at the North American auto market sales. Tesla has produced roughly 170K vehicles through Q3 globally. To put that into perspective, there will be around 70M vehicles sold globally. In 2017, 17M vehicles were sold in the US.

Lastly, the adoption curve is going to take decades especially in developing countries. Your point about banning ICE is also not supported by facts.

https://qz.com/1341155/nine-countri...-combustion-engines-none-have-a-law-to-do-so/

It's going to be a decade or two (maybe three) before ICE "ban" legislation kicks in.

Lastly, no one in this thread that I can see is refuting that the EV market is rapidly growing. Once there's a significant breakthrough in EV tech that drives down cost and increases range, the growth could be rapid. Solid State Batteries could be that technology in the near future.

People aren't buying cars? No, the market has shifted so that less people are buying cars and more are buying SUVs but Tesla still sells more S's than X's and the model 3 is selling strong. Ford stopped production of most cars, Now GM. It's poorly thought out. Obviously some people are still buying cars. Telsa has ate into the market and low gas prices have given these clueless executives the illusion that it's time to stop selling cars but it was a mistake for GM. The Cruze sells well, they are stopping in anticipation of reduction in sales. Spike in gas prices or when Ford shuttles lines would have given plenty for GM to sell.

Telsa sold 200k vehicles in the US at the start of quarter 3. IDK where you got they produced 170k at end of 3rd quarter. Not that it matters when you're talking about 17M. The fact that you'd bring this up proves my assumption and point that you don't understand the situation. I never claimed Tesla was selling some huge amount of cars or that globally EV's were a huge portion. What I said was 1% is half way there in an exponential curve. The human mind thinks linearly so it's not an intuitive function to understand what I said. But we've already hit the half way mark (as a function of time) for EV adoption.

The banning of petrol sales is supported by my intelligence which runs counter to what the average person would see. Watch some Ray Kurzweil videos to understand better. People don't know that we're half way to powering the world by solar, they didn't see the iphone coming, hardly anyone saw Tesla coming, businesses thought the internet was a fad. People can't see the future of exponential growth adoptions so the 'facts' you speak of are presented by people who think they have good evidence but they are just wrong.

which has a link to the recent story apparently from musk stating the 35k model 3 would cost 38k for them to build. in any case, i don't think it's actually going to happen, but partnering with other manufacturers to sell them sleds doesn't seem like a terrible idea.

This post sums up my point. For whatever reason, most people lack the ability to predict or see the future. It's very strange (to me) but it's how nearly everyone thinks.
 

sickmint79

I Drink Your Milkshake
Mar 2, 2008
27,079
16,897
grayslake
People aren't buying cars? No, the market has shifted so that less people are buying cars and more are buying SUVs but Tesla still sells more S's than X's and the model 3 is selling strong. Ford stopped production of most cars, Now GM. It's poorly thought out. Obviously some people are still buying cars. Telsa has ate into the market and low gas prices have given these clueless executives the illusion that it's time to stop selling cars but it was a mistake for GM. The Cruze sells well, they are stopping in anticipation of reduction in sales. Spike in gas prices or when Ford shuttles lines would have given plenty for GM to sell.

Telsa sold 200k vehicles in the US at the start of quarter 3. IDK where you got they produced 170k at end of 3rd quarter. Not that it matters when you're talking about 17M. The fact that you'd bring this up proves my assumption and point that you don't understand the situation. I never claimed Tesla was selling some huge amount of cars or that globally EV's were a huge portion. What I said was 1% is half way there in an exponential curve. The human mind thinks linearly so it's not an intuitive function to understand what I said. But we've already hit the half way mark (as a function of time) for EV adoption.

The banning of petrol sales is supported by my intelligence which runs counter to what the average person would see. Watch some Ray Kurzweil videos to understand better. People don't know that we're half way to powering the world by solar, they didn't see the iphone coming, hardly anyone saw Tesla coming, businesses thought the internet was a fad. People can't see the future of exponential growth adoptions so the 'facts' you speak of are presented by people who think they have good evidence but they are just wrong.



This post sums up my point. For whatever reason, most people lack the ability to predict or see the future. It's very strange (to me) but it's how nearly everyone thinks.

yes, no one has the beautiful mind of this oracle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM9jhGiIAFM

if you show me something where you publicly called gas being banned years ago i might believe you have some agreement with you, else you are literally just reading the news of government driven force and adoption which is also just extending european road/city/gas taxes to an extreme.

you can't compare the internet or the iphone to teslas, they are nothing alike, a point i have made to mike many times after also using the iphone example. iphones weren't available 100 years ago - we did have electric cars though. take a pvc pipe 100 tennis balls long and fill it with green tennis balls. now put in 1 red one. a green one will pop out the other end. that signal is how computers and iphones work. now put 100 more green balls in and watch the red one pop out. that is how batteries work.

surely more EVs are coming, no one disputes this. it still doesn't magically change the fact that full EVs right now are expensive or that the cheaper you go, the less batteries you have, and the more inconvenience you'll experience running pure EV.

i don't think the race is really ICE vs. EV but self-driving cars vs. car ownership at all. if you can uber up a people mover you won't really care what the drivetrain is nor do you need to buy yourself out of any pain with additional batteries as that can be entirely resolved with fleet management of these people movers.
 

zooomer

Member
Sep 30, 2008
96
9
you can't compare the internet or the iphone to teslas, they are nothing alike, a point i have made to mike many times after also using the iphone example. iphones weren't available 100 years ago - we did have electric cars though. take a pvc pipe 100 tennis balls long and fill it with green tennis balls. now put in 1 red one. a green one will pop out the other end. that signal is how computers and iphones work. now put 100 more green balls in and watch the red one pop out. that is how batteries work.

surely more EVs are coming, no one disputes this. it still doesn't magically change the fact that full EVs right now are expensive or that the cheaper you go, the less batteries you have, and the more inconvenience you'll experience running pure EV.

i don't think the race is really ICE vs. EV but self-driving cars vs. car ownership at all. if you can uber up a people mover you won't really care what the drivetrain is nor do you need to buy yourself out of any pain with additional batteries as that can be entirely resolved with fleet management of these people movers.

I agree that self driving will change everything. We seem to keep stalling as people say next year every year. The large players have made a lot of progress tho. Level 2 seems solved even for the most basic systems now. Level 3 next year. Hard to say on 4 & 5 but it would change everything about driving.

The reason electric cars 100 years ago and now aren't comparable is that back then it was a improved through random experimentation and sheer time/luck for improvements. Most technologies begin like this.

Information technology is different. The growth is exponential. Electrification has moved from a basic technology to an information technology. That changes everything. It's like Healthcare, used to be basic, now it's information (since the sequencing of DNA). So now HC will achieve a similar explosion and we'll be talking about living forever being a possibility in 2020's and in the 2030s will realize we can. Just because something was... doesn't mean it's always going to be...
 
Last edited:

Mr_Roboto

Doing the jobs nobody wants to
TCG Premium
Feb 4, 2012
25,923
31,106
Nashotah, Wisconsin (AKA not Illinois)
Gas being banned any time soon? Fah. There's how many 263M cars in the US, say they're worth an average of $5K each. That's 1.35 Trillion in assets roughly. Do you think that the citizens of the US are going to just be like "well, I'd better have the electric tow truck come and get my gasser it's not worth shit now." There'd be a revolution. There's riots in France just over them taxing gas for carbon purpose. It would also more severely affect the poor. Never gonna happen until they're almost all phased out anyways.

This says nothing of being able to get enough material to make the cars, the environmental impact that it would have to make them and the fact our electrical grid is unready to handle such a transition. You'd need a huge amount of infrastructure upgrades.

According to a rando article from The Guardian a car takes 6-35 tons of CO2 to make. The high end is a loaded Land Rover Discovery, so I have little issue saying the average American car is at say 20 tons. Each gallon of gas is roughly 20lbs of CO2. So you can break that down to 40000/20=2000. A Civic that gets 35mpg would have to go 70K miles to equal its CO2 from production, while an escalade would have to go 38K miles assuming that they both took 20Klbs of CO2 output to make. Multiply that times 263M you're talking about vast amounts of emissions. Average driving is what 12K/year? So lets replace a product that took the equivalent of 3 years driving emissions to make. Sounds really smart to me.

ED:

Great tech is one thing but it doesn't ensure business success. Plenty of great products have failed in the market. It's not a simple thing.
 

sickmint79

I Drink Your Milkshake
Mar 2, 2008
27,079
16,897
grayslake
I agree that self driving will change everything. We seem to keep stalling as people say next year every year. The large players have made a lot of progress tho. Level 2 seems solved even for the most basic systems now. Level 3 next year. Hard to say on 4 & 5 but it would change everything about driving.

i dunno about "stalling" being the right word, you make it sounds like this is a minor task.

The reason electric cars 100 years ago and now aren't comparable is that back then it was a improved through random experimentation and sheer time/luck for improvements. Most technologies begin like this.

are we going to act like batteries haven't been used elsewhere and no one has been working on them? the point was that your analogies are bad either way. there was no 100 year ago iphone, there was a 100 year ago electric car.

Information technology is different. The growth is exponential. Electrification has moved from a basic technology to an information technology. That changes everything. It's like Healthcare, used to be basic, now it's information (since the sequencing of DNA). So now HC will achieve a similar explosion and we'll be talking about living forever being a possibility in 2020's and in the 2030s will realize we can. Just because something was doesn't mean it's always going to be...

i know IT is different, that was my entire point, you tesla guys bring up iphones all the time, as if the car is analogous.
 

zooomer

Member
Sep 30, 2008
96
9
Gas being banned any time soon? Fah. There's how many 263M cars in the US, say they're worth an average of $5K each. That's 1.35 Trillion in assets roughly. Do you think that the citizens of the US are going to just be like "well, I'd better have the electric tow truck come and get my gasser it's not worth shit now." There'd be a revolution. There's riots in France just over them taxing gas for carbon purpose. It would also more severely affect the poor. Never gonna happen until they're almost all phased out anyways.
That's not how a ban works. First you ban the sale of ICE vehicles. I did not say it would happen in America first. We were talking about vehicle sales so I should have clarified. In 1 decade the SALE of ICE vehicles will be banned in many countries. An all out ban I doubt we'd see in a long, long time. Some markets just won't be feasible for electric.

In Norway, the most aggressive country, they already said 2025 will be the last sale of an ICE vehicle. 8 others have made similar but less aggressive comments.
 

zooomer

Member
Sep 30, 2008
96
9
This week Porsche VW group showed off a car, driving around and at a charging station charging at 400KW. At peak they added 100km of range in 3 minutes. Went from 10-80% in 15 min.

Back to predicting the future. Nay sayers in this thread keep talking about technology TODAY but if you draw a line from where we were 10 years ago to where we are today and extrapolate rate of improvements...
In a short time electrics will be cheaper than ICE, go farther on a charge, refuel in the same time and be able to fill at home or at a station.

It doesn't take a genius (well apparently it does) to see where this will be in 5 years. So you go to a dealership in 5 years and have a choice, exact same car. 1 electric, the other ICE. The electric is cheaper and better in every way possible. WTF is going to choose the ICE? Not many... Which is the debate of this entire thread. Everyone wants to look at today's choices as if that's how it's always going to be. Even use analogies like the electric cars we had 100 years ago. It's stupid.
 

Gone_2022

TCG Elite Member
Sep 4, 2013
13,094
7,525
This week Porsche VW group showed off a car, driving around and at a charging station charging at 400KW. At peak they added 100km of range in 3 minutes. Went from 10-80% in 15 min.

Back to predicting the future. Nay sayers in this thread keep talking about technology TODAY but if you draw a line from where we were 10 years ago to where we are today and extrapolate rate of improvements...
In a short time electrics will be cheaper than ICE, go farther on a charge, refuel in the same time and be able to fill at home or at a station.

It doesn't take a genius (well apparently it does) to see where this will be in 5 years. So you go to a dealership in 5 years and have a choice, exact same car. 1 electric, the other ICE. The electric is cheaper and better in every way possible. WTF is going to choose the ICE? Not many... Which is the debate of this entire thread. Everyone wants to look at today's choices as if that's how it's always going to be. Even use analogies like the electric cars we had 100 years ago. It's stupid.



I really want to see what they do for the cooling system on that car for the batteries. I know in the summer my car sounded like a jet engine taking off while supercharging and that was only at touching 100kws.
 

sickmint79

I Drink Your Milkshake
Mar 2, 2008
27,079
16,897
grayslake
This week Porsche VW group showed off a car, driving around and at a charging station charging at 400KW. At peak they added 100km of range in 3 minutes. Went from 10-80% in 15 min.

Back to predicting the future. Nay sayers in this thread keep talking about technology TODAY but if you draw a line from where we were 10 years ago to where we are today and extrapolate rate of improvements...
In a short time electrics will be cheaper than ICE, go farther on a charge, refuel in the same time and be able to fill at home or at a station.

It doesn't take a genius (well apparently it does) to see where this will be in 5 years. So you go to a dealership in 5 years and have a choice, exact same car. 1 electric, the other ICE. The electric is cheaper and better in every way possible. WTF is going to choose the ICE? Not many... Which is the debate of this entire thread. Everyone wants to look at today's choices as if that's how it's always going to be. Even use analogies like the electric cars we had 100 years ago. It's stupid.

are we going to pretend like you haven't given tesla blowjobs and acting like anyone who buys something like a hybrid volt TODAY is a fool? who in this thread has acted like there will be no improvements in EV over 5 years? it's perfectly valid to note the challenges of prior battery cars - batteries are expensive, take a while to charge, and you need to use them for warming and cooling your human cargo at that. the stupid analogy is your own, that these can be compared to iphones, a completely different technology. i'm sure batteries will get cheaper but i'm also sure in your "genius forecasting" you've extrapolated at a rate based on iphones and ignored this all has to do with battery chemistry. if you didn't ridicule the option of phev TODAY and at least landed in the right area of engineering you wouldn't sound like such an arrogant nutswinger. you act like other people in this thread are ICE zealots while you hyperbolize ICE problems and ignore away EV challenges as if they don't exist at all TODAY. you think we should perceive you as some technological oracle while in reality all you sound like is a religious fanboy.

So you go to a dealership in 5 years and have a choice, exact same car. 1 electric, the other ICE. The electric is cheaper and better in every way possible. WTF is going to choose the ICE? Not many

not many? who in this thread has implied that anyone would choose the ICE if this were the exact situation? you keep acting like their are ICE ideologists in here, when in fact it's just a bunch of reasoned car consumers.
 

Mr_Roboto

Doing the jobs nobody wants to
TCG Premium
Feb 4, 2012
25,923
31,106
Nashotah, Wisconsin (AKA not Illinois)
This week Porsche VW group showed off a car, driving around and at a charging station charging at 400KW. At peak they added 100km of range in 3 minutes. Went from 10-80% in 15 min.

Back to predicting the future. Nay sayers in this thread keep talking about technology TODAY but if you draw a line from where we were 10 years ago to where we are today and extrapolate rate of improvements...
In a short time electrics will be cheaper than ICE, go farther on a charge, refuel in the same time and be able to fill at home or at a station.

It doesn't take a genius (well apparently it does) to see where this will be in 5 years. So you go to a dealership in 5 years and have a choice, exact same car. 1 electric, the other ICE. The electric is cheaper and better in every way possible. WTF is going to choose the ICE? Not many... Which is the debate of this entire thread. Everyone wants to look at today's choices as if that's how it's always going to be. Even use analogies like the electric cars we had 100 years ago. It's stupid.

Lets do some math shall we? Lets say that you have a 60KW Tesla, and you're going to charge up 70% in 10 minutes.

60*.7=42KWH.

Most homes have a service of 100 or 200A. Older homes have 60 A services. Almost all homes have 240V no more no less. Doing some more math:

42,000KWH/240V=175AH

That's assuming 100% efficiency. Looking online real fast seems to indicate 80% efficiency approximately, but lets be generous and say 90%.

175AH/.9=194.444444444AH

Now that we've calculated that part out, we're not doing this in an hour. We're doing this in 10 minutes. That means that we need to multiply by a factor of 6.

194.4AH/10min=1166.4A

The idea that most electrical grids could handle this kind of peaking en masse is insane. You'd have to do significant service upgrades at your house, or even a "gas station."

On a macro level, the US uses 400 million gallons of gasoline a day. Lets take that number and play with it. Lets say the average vehicle gets 20mpg. Just pulling a number out of my hat here.

400,000,000*20mpg=8,000,000,000 miles a day

looking online you're talking 200-375WH/m for a Tesla per mile. Lets say 250 since 375 is when driving like a maniac.

8,000,000,000miles/day/24h=~333.333million miles/hr driven

333.333M*250WH/M/1,000,00W/MW=83,333.3333333MW

That's 83,333 megawatt hours. To give a point of reference, Illinois has a few atomic power plants. Their full bore capacity (excluding down time, most have 2 months a year with 1/2 capacity) is 11,841 megawatts between 11 reactors. You'd be somewhere in the area of 2 atomic power plants per state to generate that much electricity, even before line loss. It takes decades to make such a power plant and the permitting is horrible because of NIMBYism. This says nothing about trying to have transmission and distribution for that kind of juice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yaj Yak

Grabber

Oh Hai
Dec 11, 2007
4,363
860
Wheeling, IL
Part of me wants to meet the electric boys in person.

Tired of them trying to insinuate people that don’t buy electric cars are idiots and how ignorant we are for believing what we choose to instead of what their opinion is that is implied as a fact.

Part of me would be VERY happy. But, I’m not an elitist prick that thinks high end electric cars are the end all to ICE cars.

Please continue to prove how ignorant you all are by thinking you’re better than everyday people that don’t share your belief of electric cars.
 

zooomer

Member
Sep 30, 2008
96
9
Lets do some math shall we?

Most homes have a service of 100 or 200A. Older homes have 60 A services. Almost all homes have 240V no more no less. Doing some more math:

42,000KWH/240V=175AH

That's assuming 100% efficiency. Looking online real fast seems to indicate 80% efficiency approximately, but lets be generous and say 90%.

175AH/.9=194.444444444AH

Now that we've calculated that part out, we're not doing this in an hour. We're doing this in 10 minutes. That means that we need to multiply by a factor of 6.

194.4AH/10min=1166.4A

The idea that most electrical grids could handle this kind of peaking en masse is insane. You'd have to do significant service upgrades at your house, or even a "gas station."

On a macro level, the US uses 400 million gallons of gasoline a day. Lets take that number and play with it. Lets say the average vehicle gets 20mpg. Just pulling a number out of my hat here.

400,000,000*20mpg=8,000,000,000 miles a day

looking online you're talking 200-375WH/m for a Tesla per mile. Lets say 250 since 375 is when driving like a maniac.

8,000,000,000miles/day/24h=~333.333million miles/hr driven

333.333M*250WH/M/1,000,00W/MW=83,333.3333333MW

That's 83,333 megawatt hours. To give a point of reference, Illinois has a few atomic power plants. Their full bore capacity (excluding down time, most have 2 months a year with 1/2 capacity) is 11,841 megawatts between 11 reactors. You'd be somewhere in the area of 2 atomic power plants per state to generate that much electricity, even before line loss. It takes decades to make such a power plant and the permitting is horrible because of NIMBYism. This says nothing about trying to have transmission and distribution for that kind of juice.

All of your math is very close. Even conservative in some aspects.
The problem you have is the same as I've been trying to show most people have. It's funny when people challenge me. Yeah, I'm arrogant. Anyone that knows me from clubGP days knows this. However you should also be tired of being wrong. My arrogance comes from debates just like this one. Here's a suggestion. When debating someone obviously of some level of intelligence, try and consider maybe the opponent understands the discussion on a deeper level than you do. Anyway...

1. Home electrical service. If this was an issue, obviously everyone with a EV would have issues now. Your point keeps highlighting over and over that people have a long ways to go to 'get it'. People have driven ICE for 100 years so everything in their mind, in your mind, is related to that experience. I already covered this, you didn't grasp it. Charging at home does not need to be fast. It happens overnight. Like a cell phone. If the situation was reversed and people were used to EV's you'd be making an argument about how inconvenient it is to go to a gas station. You'd mock the idea of not having a 'full charge' every morning. Proof of this is by asking any EV owner. A favorite part of owning and EV is not using gas stations. This entire thread is EV knowledge people trying to educate people like you that charging is not the issue you think it is.

2. The US generated 4.03TKW of electric last year or 5.5 times what you state we need. That was not our full capacity, however the component you're missing here is solar. Battery chemistry is now an information technology. Solar is as well. Our installed capacity of solar is doubling nearly every 2 years and by 2030 most of the current electric generation will be solar displacing coal, oil, nuclear, nat gas, etc. Over time this problem easily solves itself. Even if we banned ICE today, it would take 10-25 years for them to be off the roads and replaced by electrics. Plenty of time for electric infrastructure and generation. Trust me, minds smarter than you and I have thought this thru.

Putting in perspective, you'd need about 3k sq miles of solar to power all of your cars. Or about 7% of the Mojave desert.

And while the numbers may make most people ignore it all and declare that's bullshit....California is already doing all this. EV adoption, power grid, solar, etc. 10% of vehicles sold there are EVs TODAY, and there are no issues.
March 8 of this year solar produced 50% of CA energy. They actually have too much power rn and have scaled back new solar installation. Unlike nuclear and coal plants, solar can be planned, constructed and put in service very quickly.
 

zooomer

Member
Sep 30, 2008
96
9
Please continue to prove how ignorant you all are by thinking you’re better than everyday people that don’t share your belief of electric cars.

I never said everyone should own an electric today or is stupid for not buying one. I admitted several times that TODAY there are many advantages an ICE has. I said in the near future there won't be.

As far as being better than 'everyday people'. I don't know what an 'every day person is'. I live and breathe every day same as anyone else.

In terms of being 'better'. I guess you'd have to define what better means. Smarter? of course, that's just a statistical fact. Stronger? More successful? Better at life? Sure. Nice? Humble? Prob not. "Better" doesn't define the criteria we're talking about so it's kind of a pointless word in this context. I'm 'better' than plenty of people in many ways, others are better than me in others. I think that holds true for everyone. And better only means you're in the top 49.9%. Hardly impressive.

are we going to pretend like you haven't given tesla blowjobs and acting like anyone who buys something like a hybrid volt TODAY is a fool?

I've never said or implied that save for you personally because I used your own statements about cost to prove a volt is a stupid choice for you and not a better car. I was debating constrained by YOUR statements. I later said the VOLT is loved by it's owners and serves purpose for many.
 

sickmint79

I Drink Your Milkshake
Mar 2, 2008
27,079
16,897
grayslake
  • Like
Reactions: Yaj Yak

Mr_Roboto

Doing the jobs nobody wants to
TCG Premium
Feb 4, 2012
25,923
31,106
Nashotah, Wisconsin (AKA not Illinois)
All of your math is very close. Even conservative in some aspects.
The problem you have is the same as I've been trying to show most people have. It's funny when people challenge me. Yeah, I'm arrogant. Anyone that knows me from clubGP days knows this. However you should also be tired of being wrong. My arrogance comes from debates just like this one. Here's a suggestion. When debating someone obviously of some level of intelligence, try and consider maybe the opponent understands the discussion on a deeper level than you do. Anyway...

You give yourself way too much credit.

1. Home electrical service. If this was an issue, obviously everyone with a EV would have issues now. Your point keeps highlighting over and over that people have a long ways to go to 'get it'. People have driven ICE for 100 years so everything in their mind, in your mind, is related to that experience. I already covered this, you didn't grasp it. Charging at home does not need to be fast. It happens overnight. Like a cell phone. If the situation was reversed and people were used to EV's you'd be making an argument about how inconvenient it is to go to a gas station. You'd mock the idea of not having a 'full charge' every morning. Proof of this is by asking any EV owner. A favorite part of owning and EV is not using gas stations. This entire thread is EV knowledge people trying to educate people like you that charging is not the issue you think it is.

Charging over 8 hours is one thing. Charging over a few minutes is another, as per the "electric cars will be like gassers and you'll charge in the same time" line of thought. Even for a gas station that's some pretty serious juice if you're talking charging say 12 cars at once like a gas station does now. You're talking 3.36 megawatts with the numbers below before inefficiencies. The average home with a 200A service has 48KW available.

2. The US generated 4.03TKW of electric last year or 5.5 times what you state we need. That was not our full capacity, however the component you're missing here is solar. Battery chemistry is now an information technology. Solar is as well. Our installed capacity of solar is doubling nearly every 2 years and by 2030 most of the current electric generation will be solar displacing coal, oil, nuclear, nat gas, etc. Over time this problem easily solves itself. Even if we banned ICE today, it would take 10-25 years for them to be off the roads and replaced by electrics. Plenty of time for electric infrastructure and generation. Trust me, minds smarter than you and I have thought this thru.

Putting in perspective, you'd need about 3k sq miles of solar to power all of your cars. Or about 7% of the Mojave desert.

Throwing 15-20% on top of the generation capacity is not as easy as it sounds. Then there's also the carbon footprint of making the generation capacity, the impact it has on what you have around it, shipping that capacity and so on. This discounts distribution too if it's centralized and not spread around on people's roof tops. I'd be curious what you mean by "battery technology is now an information technology." over 60 years we have had roughly a trillion times increase in computing power.

https://gizmodo.com/the-trillion-fold-increase-in-computing-power-visualiz-1706676799

Even if you go with the earliest examples which were nothing more than proof of concept we have probably had less than a 100 times increase in the solar cell efficiency in the last 140 years or so. If you count the first commercially viable stuff that came out of the 50s/60s you're talking less than a 10X increase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency#Comparison

Battery wise, it's not much better either. Lets look at a chart and see where energy density stands.

battery-comparison-energy-density.jpg


Looking online the density of a P100D is 213 Wh/kg. Good but certainly not "IT paced performance increases." For comparison, a gallon of gasoline weighs ~6.25lbs and has 33,400 KW energy. That means that the gallon of gasoline has an energy density of over 70X the battery still. Admittedly I'd probably cut this by about half just due to gasoline engines losing about 2/3 their energy from heat emissions through the rad and exhaust. The reason why half is the Tesla will have inefficiencies in the motors, batteries and power components too. Even half may be generous, but the system does have definite losses. That means there's still a logarithmic order of magnitude difference in energy density even if the Tesla is 3X as efficient as the gasser. Gas has lots of energy density, and that's a big thing to compete with.

And while the numbers may make most people ignore it all and declare that's bullshit....California is already doing all this. EV adoption, power grid, solar, etc. 10% of vehicles sold there are EVs TODAY, and there are no issues.
March 8 of this year solar produced 50% of CA energy. They actually have too much power rn and have scaled back new solar installation. Unlike nuclear and coal plants, solar can be planned, constructed and put in service very quickly.
[/QUOTE]

Just because a politician made it the law doesn't make it good or sane. They are also in a place that's not environmentally like much of the US in terms of sun. 50% of their energy being solar is wrong. "nonhydroelectric renewables" are about 1/4 of their energy and that likely includes wind power as well. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-4 They sell 2M vehicles ish a year right now, during the recession it was 1M vehicles. That means 100-200K cars a year of 14M are electric at 10%. Also somewhere ~40% of cars on the road are 10 years or older. I'd be willing to wager older in California where shit doesn't rust.

You know anything about how they construct solar cells? The process isn't exactly environmentally friendly. Shipping them isn't either. Placing them in the Mohave Desert isn't friendly either. I'm sure Greenpeace would be happy to find some endangered critters to keep em from being built there at some point. They whine about the windmills too.

Is the tech cool? Yes. Revolutionary? Perhaps. Would we see all the cars off the road in the next 10-25 years is insane. The idea that everyone can just "go buy an electric car" is absurd, or that they'd want to even. Oddly the way I could see us going in the next several years if we became hyper conscious about carbon content is CNG with a hybrid system.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 90 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant. Consider starting a new thread to get fresh replies.

Thread Info